Surgical Techniques

Flight plan for robotic surgery credentialing: New AAGL guidelines

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

The only other methods currently available to verify surgeon competency are to demonstrate proficiency on simulation and to review outcomes data, looking for outliers in important areas such as complications, robotic console times, total operative times, length of stay, etc.

Simulation offers a standardized, independent method to monitor competency.19 A passing test score on a robotic simulator exercise could be a way for a surgeon to prove his or her competency. Basic robotic skills such as camera control and clutching, energy use, and sewing and ­needle control can be practiced on a robotic simulator.

Virtual cases such as hysterectomy and myomectomy are not yet available on the simulator, nor are cases involving typical complications. These are being developed, however, and will be available shortly.

Several gynecologic resident and fellowship training programs are using simulation to train novice surgeons, and some community hospitals are using simulation as an annual requirement for all practicing surgeons to demonstrate proficiency, similar to pilots.8 Some newer validated training protocols require a surgeon to demonstrate mastery of a particular robotic skill by achieving passing scores at least five times, with at least two consecutive passing scores.20,21

As simulators evolve, they will continue to be incorporated into training, used for surgeon warm-up before surgery, as refreshers for surgeons after a period of robotic inactivity, and for annual recertification.

When robotic surgery leads to legal trouble

A recent medical malpractice case highlights the importance of having guidelines in place to protect patients. In Bremerton, Washington, in 2008,1 a urologist performed his first nonproctored robotic prostatectomy. The challenging and difficult procedure took more than 13 hours; he converted to an open procedure after 7 hours. The patient developed significant postoperative complications and died.1

In the litigation that followed, the surgeon was sued for negligence and for failing to disclose that this was his first solo robot-assisted surgery. The surgeon settled, as did the hospital, which was sued for not supervising the surgeon and failing to ensure that he could use the robot safely. The family also sued Intuitive Surgical, the manufacturer of the da Vinci Robot, for failing to provide adequate training to the surgeon.2

The jury ruled in favor of the manufacturer, stating that the verification of adequate surgeon training was the responsibility of the hospital and specialty medical societies, not the industry.

References

  1. Estate of Fred Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical Inc., 09-2-03136-5, Superior Court, State of Washington, Kitsap County (Port Orchard).
  2. Ostrom C. Failed robotic surgery focus of Kitsap trial. Seattle Times. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020918732_robottrialxml.html Published May 3, 2013. Accessed October 10, 2014.

A word to the wise
If hospital departments really want to ensure that they are doing all that they can to make robotic surgeries safe for their patients, they will utilize the recent guidelines approved by AAGL. In order for these guidelines to work, hospital systems need to commit re­sources for medical staff oversight, inclu­ding a robotics peer-review committee with a physician chairman and adequate medical staff support to monitor physicians and manage those who cannot meet these goals.

There clearly will be push-back from surgeons who feel that it is unfair to restrict their ability to perform surgery just because their volumes are low or they can’t master the simulation exercises. However, in the final analysis, would we want the airlines to employ pilots who fly only a couple of times a year or who can’t master the required simulation skills to safely operate a commercial passenger jet?

The important question is, what is our focus? Is it to be “fair” to all surgeons, or is it to provide the best and safest outcomes for our patients? As surgeons, we each need to remember the oath we took when we became physicians to “First, do no harm.” By following these new AAGL robotic surgery ­guidelines, we will reassure our patients that we, as physicians, do take that oath seriously.

INSTANT POLL
For credentialing and privileging of robotic gynecologic surgery, do you agree that the following points are essential components of the process?

1. Surgeons should be selected for training who are most likely to be successful in performing robotic surgeries safely and efficiently.
2. There should be a minimum number of procedures performed on a regular basis to ensure that the surgeon maintains his or her psychomotor (hand-eye coordination) skills.
3. Surgeons, like pilots, should be required to demonstrate their competency in operating the robot on a regular basis.

Answer:
a. Yes, I agree.
b. No, I believe this approach is too restrictive.
c. No, I believe this approach is not restrictive enough.

To vote, please visit obgmanagement.com and look for “Quick Poll” on the right side of the homepage.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Tissue extraction during minimally invasive Gyn surgery. Second of 2 Parts: Counseling the patient
MDedge ObGyn
Ovarian cancer often arises from precursor endometriosis
MDedge ObGyn
Commentary: Musings on morcellation
MDedge ObGyn
Total abdominal hysterectomy the Mayo Clinic way
MDedge ObGyn
Mucocele in cesarean scar can cause pain, bladder urgency, dyspareunia
MDedge ObGyn
Mother’s preference should determine epidural timing
MDedge ObGyn
ACS offers information on its Ebola virus transmission resource page
MDedge ObGyn
Risk-reducing salpingectomy during surgery for benign indications
MDedge ObGyn
The Extracorporeal C-Incision Tissue Extraction (ExCITE) technique
MDedge ObGyn
Insertion of devices at 90˚ to the umbilicus is not safe for overweight and obese women
MDedge ObGyn

Related Articles